Kangaroo Island Councillor Graham Walkom has alerted KIpolis.net that one of his two Questions on Notice for Kangaroo Island Council meeting of 2013.01.16 was heavily edited, presumably by the Council CEO, Andrew Boardman.
Here’s the original QoN of Cr Walkom, followed by the edited / censored version and Council’s “answer”.
To censor questions from a councillor is striking. To publish the edited version not mentioning that the question was modified without the consent of the author… is adding insult to injury, to the elected member but also to the electorate.
Political interference by admin is a no-no in any democratic system. That kind of manipulative and anti-democratic power games have to STOP. The published agenda must include a correction, reestablishing the original question.
Dr Gabriel Bittar
[see also: Council’s doors close on the last few shards of openness and transparency — Cr Gr. Walkom, 2013.01.16 ]
[see also: Ratepayers need questions and answers printed in the Council Agenda — Knight, Shirley 2013.01.28]
*****
Original QoN by Councillor Walkom:
Penneshaw CWMS Status
The last annual Community newsletter appears to have been no. 9, released in September 2011 and whilst council has agreed design plans it has not advised the community despite committing to do so, and judging by the number of people contacting me, some in the community appear to be delaying purchases, sales, development and construction decisions because vital information is not available: when will the next community newsletter be released and will it provide the information reasonably expected by the community?
What are the current best estimates for:
a. Construction commencement?
b. Construction completion?
Edited question as published in the Council’s agenda for 2013.01.16 – note the introduction has been suppressed by the CEO :
Penneshaw CWMS Status
1. When will the next community newsletter be released and will it provide the information reasonably expected by the community?
2. What are the current best estimates for:
a. Construction commencement?
b. Construction completion?
The CEO’s answer :
1. The next Community Newsletter is due for publishing within the next quarter – this will happen irrespective of progress with the CWMS Project as there are plenty of other subjects to discuss with the Community.
As the Councillor is aware the Penneshaw CWMS Project design and cost analysis needs to be completed to LGA CWMS Management Committee satisfaction and the subsidy confirmed – this process is in hand and is being driven by the CEO personally (in conjunction with the relevant people) to ensure that the matter is resolved as quickly as is feasible. Once this is done the completed and costed designs will be put back before Council for consideration and ratification with the aim of releasing the approved costed, design for public consultation.
We are aware that we have been in this position for over 6 months now and that is regrettable. This is being driven by processes that are not under our complete control. The LGA CWMS Manager, CEO and the Consulting Engineers are all working on resolving some of the challenges that this project presents as quickly as they can.
2. Best estimates are as follows:
a) Construction Commencement – + 6 months from approval for Public Consultation
b) Construction Completion – this will depend on a number of factors and cannot be accurately estimated at this stage – assuming continuous work from commencement then say 12-18 months but cannot be confirmed until design is confirmed and tender offers evaluated.
I saw three questions in Cr Walkolm QoN and they were …
…”when will the next community newsletter be released and will it provide the information reasonably expected by the community?
What are the current best estimates for:
a. Construction commencement?
b. Construction completion?”
The statement prior to the first question was that…A statement!
GR: Having a question out of context is akin to having an answer without the question. You seem very easily influenced and accepting of a piper paid “legal opinion”.
This is ridiculous – do you seriously think there is a material difference in the questions? Questions on notice are not there for grandstanding by Councillors which this is what appears to be happening every month. The first part of the “question” was a statement with an opinion criticising the administration and it is absolutely fine from a democratic perspective for the administration to extract the nub of a question as it do not alter the facts sought. I find it really interesting that in 10 years of being on Council the question on notice process was used about 3 times – the current overuse of this process is time-wasting and in my view illustrates a lack of understanding of efficient governance by Councillors. It is about time they got on with the job they were elected to do.
17th January, 2013
Council Resolution 16.01.2013
Moved Cr Clements, Seconded Cr Denholm
That all future Questions on Notice to Council adhere to the following criteria:
1. Questions on Notice to Council do not include any preamble or wording within the Question that embellishes, in anyway, the objective nature of the question.
2. Where such Question on Notice is capable of being answered by Senior Officers, Councillors will utilise this opportunity first and foremost before presenting a Question on Notice to Council.
3. For the edification of Council, knowledge of the question posed and answers provided by Senior Officers, where appropriate, will be circulated to Councillors as they are dealt with and in advance of the Council Meeting.
CARRIED. 5 For, 1 Against (Cr Liu, in absentia Cr Walkom)
I attended the council meeting yesterday (2013.01.16). I saw Deputy Mayor Peter Clements engineering his resolution to carry out what I consider an offensive “policy on the run” in regard to questions on notice. I was appalled ! Such a resolution effectively shuts down councillors’ questions, indispensable information to the community (and a way of keeping an eye on the administration) that only councillors Liu and Walkom go to the trouble of using. I had an altercation with Cr Clements during the lunch break.
I told him that by calling the preamble to questions an “embellishment” he was making a huge assumption. He disagreed because “We took legal advice on this”
I spontaneously interjected “Oh no!”. I was simply conveying the feeling of many ratepayers fed up with Council wasting money on so-called “legal advice”, using this “advice” as a means of shutting up anyone objecting to its action.
The Deputy Mayor then told me I was not respecting Council.
So I replied “But you are not respecting me as a ratepayer. Many in the community want councillors to ask the questions together with a preamble because how else would the community know the background to what the Council is doing.”
Then the Deputy Mayor said something to imply I was claiming I was right which he could not validate as I had not said so. – Another incorrect assumption. He added: “ The questions are not for the community – they are for the Council” ! Does the community agree with that ?
He did not seem to have read or understood that in his report on Kangaroo Island Council the State Ombudsman had indicated that the questions and answers were a means of getting information out to the public.
Then the Deputy Mayor repeated, more than twice, “You are not respecting council – the resolution was passed by a majority of councillors”
Well, I deeply feel that the attitude of the current majority in Council is disrespectful to the electorate and to the councillors in the minority — it is outrageous!
Technically my opinion is that this resolution was unwarranted, and there is a Code of Conduct which says the opinion of members of the community should be respected and there is a moral code which says there is a time to speak up ! The implications from this resolution in regard to questions and answers will be serious and will add to the often discussed dysfunction of the council. At the very best it will not make it better.
Thesaurus synonyms for embellish:
adornment, coloring, decoration, doodad, elaboration, embroidering, embroidery, enhancement, enrichment, exaggeration, fandangle, floridity, flowery speech, frill, froufrou, fuss, garnish, gilding, gingerbread, hyperbole, icing on the cake, jazz, ornament, ornamentation, ostentation, overstatement
Cr Walkoms Reply to my post: “GR: Having a question out of context is akin to having an answer without the question. You seem very easily influenced and accepting of a piper paid “legal opinion”.”…
The object of a question is to get an answer… Your question was …”when will the next community newsletter be released and will it provide the information reasonably expected by the community?”… and it received an answer… How can that be… “akin to having an answer without the question”?… There was no question in the statement therefore how can anybody reasonable respond?
I take offence to your statement that I seem to be easily influenced… I am more that capable of forming my own opinions. My response to Dr Bittars publication of this post was a direct response to that post and was not influenced by any “piper paid legal opinion”… in fact I formed it solely based on the facts presented in the post.
With regards to the other points raised in the posts above:… I agree with Craig Wickham…THIS IS RIDICULOUS!….
Statements have been made with regards councillors acting on behalf of ratepayers… How does all this bickering on council benefit the ratepayers?
The following is my opinion… it is not based on any statistic thats could prove it right or wrong I am making it because I can!… There are councillors that seem to be intent on disrupting normal operations of council and I believe they are an embarrassment to themselves and Kangaroo Island ratepayers. The majority of ratepayers would be rather see them get their fingers out of their pompous arses and get on with the job of doing what councils do and not use the this arena to satisfy their need for political grandstanding!
I wish to remind users of http://www.KIpolis.net that the layed-out basic rules for this website, found on the homepage, states:
“- no foul language”
I hesitated to censor the last sentence of the above reply, but decided to take its offensive and foul part as a “figure of style” (not so stylish, though).
I expect better from contributors, so please take on board my red flag. When the debaters concentrate on issues, there’s a chance of a dialogue happening, otherwise it’s just a brawl.
The webmaster
Dear Mr Ricketts, I believe I too am a reasonable person and I can respond to your not so pleasant and abusive language which adds nothing to any debate; so why bother. It only shows to me that your comments do not carry any weight in this debate. You might improve your comments by actually impressing us with statistics or even show that you have been following the flow of Council’s obligations to its community by understanding the importance of questions put to the Council by the only two elected members who care. A final plea for you not to include the other ratepayers as being a party to your foul language. Shirley Knight